07-14-2016, 01:33 PM
For the APS-C model Sigma claims this figures:
Effective Pixels: Approx. 29.5MP
<span style="color:rgb(70,70,70);text-align:center;">T(Top): 5,440×3,616 / M(Middle): 2,720×1,808 / B(Bottom): 2,720×1,808
<span style="color:rgb(70,70,70);text-align:center;">Total Pixels: Approx. 33.2MP</span></span>
So, by saying 19.2 MP, you're counting only the blue layer and ignoring the other layers? Anyway, who cares? It is the closest approach to films like Kodachrome, which also had 3 layers. The rendering is special, the sharpness usually better than the Bayer result on a print. That's what I see.
Btw. I don't think, this system is a typical "standard zoom"-application as they bundle it with 30/1.4 Art prime. But in this little reportage (
http://www.sigma-global.com/en/cameras/s...mpression/) the 17-70 is not the worst lens I've seen so far.
There are many many other Bayer sensor on the market, nobody has to complain about the Sigma way.
Effective Pixels: Approx. 29.5MP
<span style="color:rgb(70,70,70);text-align:center;">T(Top): 5,440×3,616 / M(Middle): 2,720×1,808 / B(Bottom): 2,720×1,808
<span style="color:rgb(70,70,70);text-align:center;">Total Pixels: Approx. 33.2MP</span></span>
So, by saying 19.2 MP, you're counting only the blue layer and ignoring the other layers? Anyway, who cares? It is the closest approach to films like Kodachrome, which also had 3 layers. The rendering is special, the sharpness usually better than the Bayer result on a print. That's what I see.
Btw. I don't think, this system is a typical "standard zoom"-application as they bundle it with 30/1.4 Art prime. But in this little reportage (
http://www.sigma-global.com/en/cameras/s...mpression/) the 17-70 is not the worst lens I've seen so far.
There are many many other Bayer sensor on the market, nobody has to complain about the Sigma way.